The purpose of this research is to investigate Korean architects’ perception of the Modern Movement in architecture in the West during the Japanese colonial period, by analyzing two Korean publications in the 1930s: Park Dongjin’s ‘Present Architectural Tendency’ (Dong-A Ilbo, March 1931) and Hong Yunsick’s ‘Trend in the Thought of Moderne Baukunst’ (Chogwang, September 1937). As a result of the investigation, it is confirmed that the two men welcomely accepted the universal modernity, regarding the rational and functional - rather than subjective expressions of the individual - as the key to modern architecture. Although their perception of the Modern Movement in Western architecture was inevitably superficial due to the limited condition of the Japanese colonial period in Korea, there was an obvious advancement in the latter’s perception from the former’s, reflecting the progress in knowledge of it over the six and a half years between the two. Therefore, it is argued that their 1930s’ writings are meaningful as the first Korean publications that illustrate how Korean architectural circles perceived the contemporary architectural movement in the West.

This study is on the pedagogical convention of architectural history in Korea, especially that of Western Architecture. Recent institutional change in architectural school in Korea has caused overall restructuring of academic program. In spite of extension in the field of history there was no progress of method and way of thinking. There is no change in the point of view to see the western architecture and its history as a unique and specialized phenomenon in the civilization of mankind. Because of no recognition about for what, for whom, and how to, and because of orientalism, the cultural position of western architectural history and its narrative was not asked. With the help of post-colonialism, de-constructivism and critical historiography this paper tries to show the fundamental premise of western architectural history as a myth and show its prejudice as not being justifiable. The background of the discourse there has been a representation effect with regard to knowledge as a power. we need to escape from this kind of cognitional frame With the analysis of the its premise and narrative we can find it is a historical construct that was made in the age of imperialism. In fact it has a lot of false information and problematic point of view. The Identity and originality of western architecture and its history has no logical reason or foundation if we think that it depends on the difference and comparison with other civilization. For example the explanation of its historical origin western architecture has big difference with Islamic architecture in spite of the resemblance each other. This paper try to show several reasons that discourse of western architectural history can not be survived any longer. So we need to reconstruct new pedagogy with deconstruction for the students of non western, or Korean students. Because it has important effect to see and think about architecture and its history.

Western style timber roof trusses used as typical roof structures of buildings during a modern period have been developed with the interactions with their facade and functionality. The shapes of trusses and member sizes have been diversely changed by the purposes of architects, historical circumstances, and structural characteristics. For this reason, the change in the shapes of western style timber trusses along the times is one of important technology assets demonstrating the development of their structures during the modern period. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to find out their structural characteristics throughout parametric analysis of which parameters were determined from the collected and classified documents on western style timber roof structure built in the modern period carefully obtained from public institutions. Results of the parametric analysis are as follows. The number of king-post trusses and modified king-post trusses built between 1920 and 1937 reaches almost half of the total number of truss types investigated. The mean values of their spans, distances, tributary areas, and height are respectively, 10.5m, 2.4m, 24.37㎡ and 3.24m. The cross-section areas of trusses tend to reduce since the city construction law was enacted in 1920. Also, this study found that western architects usually used larger structural members than eastern architects and usages and finishing materials of roof trusses are not always considered as one of the important design parameters.

We are so used to the concept of the term 'space' that we do not question its conceptual validity. However, this paper argues that the notion of space prevailing all over the world, is not a universal concept that can be applicable to all architectures of the world, but is a particular concept that is generated from the Western way of thinking. This paper alms to identify the conceptual structure of the idea of space as it is originated in the tradition of the West, and, as an alternative view of space, tries to identify the nature of the view of space perceived in the tradition of the Eastern architecture. Comparison of the two views, that of the East and the West, and their meaning in the future of architecture, is another task to discuss in this paper. To be able to clarify the meaning of space in East Asian tradition, a set of new perspective of understanding of space was invited. They are ; 1. sky-earth(天地); insisting that the notion of space should be replaced within the context of sky, which is one half of sky-earth totality 2. energy of the air (空氣), space is not empty part inside of a building, but is a dynamic condition of air that is a part of the sky which always exist in form of energy 3. place(자리): instead of space, which, basically. is a man-made concept, idea of place is necessary, which include not only space but also earth Such concept of space which is different from the notion of space of the West, is meaningful not only to identify the idea of space in the East, but also to be able to contribute for more dynamic, varied, and balanced understanding of space.

All architectures in the history have certain attitudes of aesthetic expression of their own. Depending on the culture, such aesthetic attitudes are not the same but different. This paper aims to identify the nature of the difference of aesthetic attitude in the architectures of the East and the West. As a way of approach for this purpose, two keywords are employed as representative concept. They are: 'proportion' and 'vitality'. Proportion, of course, represent the attitude of the Western, while, vitality, the Eastern. Although these two words are subjective selection, it is hoped that the nature of aesthetic attitudes could be observed through the windows of these two representative concepts. We all know that the architects and students of architecture of this period, are very much concerned about the aesthetic expression of their design. However, the value judgement of aesthetic quality seems quite confused in modem period. If the nature of aesthetic attitudes of the Eastern and the Western architecture is well understood, such understanding will help much for the direction of architectural aesthetic of future architecture.

All architecture in the history were based on a certain concept of architectural unit that functioned as a base model of architectural design. As we know, such model was not the same in the East and the West, and therefore, their architectures are not the same. This paper aims to identify how and why such base model of the two cultural area are different. As one way of discussing this issue, the concept of particle and field, as two representative idea of the West and East respectively, the employed. This kind of discussion can not follow the way of scientific verification as method of argument. However, the understanding of such concept of unit model is crucial for the understanding of the architecture of the culture in general. In basic sense, the tradition of Western architecture is rooted in the model of particle, where, architecture is conceived to be as a independent unit standing on earth as if it is a box like object. While, the tradition of Eastern architecture is rooted in the model field, where, architecture is conceived to be a part of field organization. In present days, we are used to the model of particle as if it is the only possible model of architecture. But, in fact, what man need to achieve in their architecture and city, is the balance between the two models.

Perception of architectural experience is different in different culture. This paper aims to identify how the experience of architecture is understood to be different in Eastern and Western culture. The discussion is based on the idea that the Western architecture placed more emphasis on visual perception, while the Eastern, on mutual responsiveness between man and built environment. The fact that the Western culture is more visually oriented than other culture, and therefore visual aspect of architecture, too, is considered to be very important, is already widely agreed among scholars. But, then, what had been considered to be important in the architectural experience in the East? It is the degree and quality of mutual responsiveness between man and architectural environment. This fact influenced much on the making of architecture of course, and the same fact played the key role in making the Eastern architecture different from that of the West. We are so used to the way of architecture of the West, that the quality of responsiveness is unknown if not forgotten. However, it is not the quality that was useful only in traditional society of the East, but necessary in our modem period as well. The quality for responsiveness, therefore, should be rediscovered and restored as the prime value and quality of architecture in the future architecture.

The tradition of architecture in the East and the West are different in many ways. One of the basic cause of such difference, however, is the different ways of perception of space and time. This paper aims to identify the attitude of perception of space and time in the cultures of the East and the West, and its influence on architecture. Degrees of importance placed on either space or time, as well as the modes of perception of space and time are discussed in relation to architecture. Basically, the architecture of the West seems to be more spatially oriented than the East, and this have much to do with the fact that the tradition of Western architecture is visually oriented. On the other hand, East Asian architecture have been more conscious on bodily feeling and its movement in architecture. Spatial units of traditional Eastern architecture, are arranged in such a way in which man can experience the change of space that is supposed to be organized to form a sequential message. Thus, in the East, temporal dimension is more deliberately included in the course of architectural experience compared to the cases of the West. Although it is not easy to attempt any kind of value judgment on such aspects, it is necessary to understand how the different perception of space and time influenced architectural outcome, especially when one wants to understand the cultural cause that have made the architectures of the East and the West very different. Such understanding is particularly important in East Asia where their future of architecture depends much on how they harmonize the Eastern and Western background which are already built up as two cultural structure in their consciousness to be able to create more desirable architecture for themselves.

This paper aims to identify the meaning of architectural form of the East and the West. Ordinarily, we know the visual differences of architectural form between the two cultural families, and the technical reasons of such differences. However, the East and the West have their own views of architectural form that are derived from their own views of architecture, and again the views of architecture are rooted in their own views of the world. The paper maintains a comparative stance between the two cultures in analyzing the different concepts of architectural form, and employ the ideas of 'Form(形象)' and 'Energy-Form(氣形)' as a kind of representative concept of the two views of architectural form. It is discussed that the idea of Form pursued the realization of ultimate substance which is less materialistic but more ideal., while, the idea of Energy-Form pursued the realization of oneness and health through mutual interaction between man, architecture and nature. Architectural form in the West has been the purposeful expression of human ideal, while in the East, it was an expediential device for better energy condition. It seems important to understand such differences of the meaning of architectural form between the East and the West, since, in present time, we tend to think that the Western conception of architectural form is the only possible one. But it is not generally known that the Western conception of form has very particular background reason of its own which is unique to Western culture, and on the other hand, the nature of East Asian conception of architectural form is generally unknown.

Main theme of this study is the acceptance phase of western architectural culture in modern east-north asia through a series of actual survey and typological analysis of existing church buildings in modern Korea. China. Japan. For this study, 126 modern church buildings of Korea, China, Japan are selected. Also, main subject of this study has deal with the side of culture - thought which background of christianity acceptance and acceptance mind of acceptance main-body, culture adaptation and transformation based on characteristic culturalization of Korea, China, Japan. Especially, I would consistently tried to see the acceptance phase of western architectural culture according to differential acceptance mind of acceptance main-body based on characteristic culturalization of three countries. Conclusively, in the point of view of western architectural culture acceptance phase, it could be said that Korean church architecture had characterized as a blending phase of the two eclectic architectural culture. And in the case of china, as a coexistance phase of the two architectural culture with more western style-oriented. On the other hand, Japanese church architecture had characterized as a syncretism phase of the both traditional and western architectural culture, though it is eclectic style-oriented. Therefore, it is thought that different acceptance mind of western culture had main factors caused of differential acceptance phase, when the two architectural culture, the traditional and the western, encounters.

동양과 서양은 과거에서부터 현재까지 서로의 문화적 차이를 인정하며 각자 발전을 추구 해왔다. 최근 인터넷 등의 영향으로 이러한 문화적 경계의 구분이 완화되어가고 있다. 그러나 수세기동안 각자의 문화권에서 발전을 이루어 왔던 보이지 않는 차이는 존재 한다. 따라서 디자인의 원천적인 소스는 다르다고 할 수 있다. 그중 우리가 주목해야 할 것 중의하나로 서양에서는 건축가가 가구를 직접 디자인하는 경우가 많다. 이런 현상은 과거에서부터 현재 까지 이루어지고 있다. 그러나 동양에서는 가구는 가구디자이너가 건축은 건축가가 따로 디자인하는 것이 일반적이다. 동서양이 문화적, 경제적으로 교류가 활발해진 최근에도 이런 관행은 지속되어가고 있다. 이는 분명히 역사적으로 특별한 계기가 있었으리라 추정할 수 있다. 연구의 절차로는 문화형성과 디자인의 체계, 건축과 가구의 연계성에 중점을 두었다. 연구하다 보면 표면적으로는 드러나지 않지만 동양과 서양의 오랜 관습과 문화를 바탕으로 디자인의 영역이 구분되어 왔다는 것을 알 수 있다. 이러한 현상이 현재의 디자인에도 영향을 미치고 있다는 점을 알 수 있을 것이다. 결과적으로 향후에는 가구디자인 분야가 건축, 인테리어 등 다양한 분야와 조율되어 발전시킬 수 있을 것이다. 동양과 서양의 문화적 차이에 의한 디자인과 관계된 다른 사례도 많이 있을 것이지만, 이번 연구를 기반으로 추후 유사한 맥락에서 연구할 분야가 많을 것으로 보여 진다.

본고는 서양의 시대정신인 모더니티라는 자아이상을 추구하는 과정에 새롭게 그들의 인식에 등장한 동아시아풍의 건축이 그들의 당대 건축문화 형성에 미친 영향을 연구해 보고자 한다. 시기는 모더니티에 대한 고민이 한창인 18세기 중엽부터 20세기 초반으로 설정한다. 동아시아로 한정하여, 근대 서양 건축문화 형성 과정에 동아시아의 어떠한 점이 어떻게 개입되어 궁극적으로 그들의 20세기 모더니즘 건축에 일조 했는지 시기별로 구분하여 살펴볼 것이다.